On 6/8/06, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW - How can we add new Plugins to the geronimoplugins website? Are we going to setup a Geronimo subproject (like Daytrader) with the site framework checked into svn, along with any scripts needed to build the plugins? It seems convoluted to have samples and plugin builds in the main Geronimo tree, which are not shipped with the server or automatically pushed to geronimoplugins. Wouldn't it be easier to maintain if we moved all the samples out to /trunk/samples/modules and all the equivalent plugin configs to /trunk/samples/plugins? That way, the Samples and plugins can be built, published and enhanced separate from the server development....
Currently, to get a plugin added to the web site, you can mail it to me. If you want to help out there, it would be great to have a script that read the plugin.xml files and emitted the various PHP files with all the plugin info! Currently it's a little more manual. :) We should definitely have a separate are in the SVN tree for the samples. There's no reason they should be tied to the Geronimo release schedule. We also need a non-Apache space where we can write the plugin wrappers for various interesting LGPL projects. Thanks, Aaron
Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 6/7/06, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why shouldn't the Plugin support be as robust as module dependencies and >> allow the user providing the plugin to decide if they can support >> geronimo_version=*, 1.* or 1.1* ? Limiting the plugins to only support >> predefined 1.1, 1.2, 1.2-betaN and 1.2-rcN labels seems like a hack to >> me and doesn't follow previous email threads about not deviating from >> Maven2 versioning behavior... > > > But what you've said here is "why shouldn't the plugin support be as > robust as A and allow B" where A != B. Module dependencies let you > specify an exact version or no version. Plugin dependencies also let > you specify an exact version or no version. Neither of these support > 1.* or 1.1*. > >> Just as with the Tomcat JSP/Servlet Examples, you could easily provide a >> Plugin which should work on all 1.x releases.... > > > My preference it to opt-in supported version, not opt-out unsupported > versions. So I'd like the plugin developer to try a plugin on a > Geronimo version and if it works, list that version as supported. The > alternative will most likely lead to Geronimo being willing to install > a plugin but the plugin not working. If we get fancier version > dependencies we can consider things like "1.1.*" but I'm not sure I > like that. I'm willing to be convinced, but I'd want to hear from > more plugin developers/maintainers. > > Thanks, > Aaron > >
